James DiEugenio
-
Posts
13,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by James DiEugenio
-
Paul, I have had my own web site on the JFK case for about 12 years. I previously published a journal on the case for about 7 years. I have written or co edited four books. I daresay I have developed a reputation already. As to what I think of the case, about JFK, and others in the field. In contrast to that, you have written no books, published no journals and have no web site on this case. Its you who are now under the microscope.
-
Ernie: I also realize (as Bill has previously pointed out) the limitations and requirements imposed by book publishing companies. This is a non sequitir. The author published the book himself. The giveaway is the name of the company. This is the county where he lives. If the footnotes are incomplete and non traditional--and I noticed this immediately, as you also point out--then that is the way the author wanted them to be.
-
I think its you who is under a microscope Paul.
-
Mr. Hank T: "All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey." Can you show me where I ever wrote that sentence? -
But if it is made with card stock, why is it that the "Mar 12 1963" postal stamp so readily bled through to the back? The fact that it bled though indicates that the MO we see is actually paper stock, not card stock. And this conclusion contradicts the conclusion of the prior paragraph. Nice point Sandy.
-
Davey: I am not taking to you anymore on this issue. OK? I only did so to show the others how your constellation works: the McAdams, DVP, Davison connection. So they will not be fooled again. Over and out. Bye.
-
Thanks Paul. It may take awhile, since the book has Waldron disease. Its about 800 pages of text. I took about fifty pages of notes on Ultimate Sacrifice, before I could review it.
-
James, do you know if this 1961 uncashed postal money order is posted somewhere? I couldn't find it. Yes it is, as John sent it to me. I could not get it to transfer to this site.
-
Jus Just like Bardwell Odum showed Wright and Tomlinson CE 399 and they positively identified it, right ? Give us all a break OK?
-
Very nice Jon.
-
Nice way to lose the point Paul. Actually two of them. I did not post this at the other thread that O'Neill started because he seems to be a decent enough chap. And since he helped Jeff a lot, I understand his rationale. And he is not lashing out at others to make his case. Jeff does not acknowledge you in that section at the end. Even though you say you conversed with him for years. Hmm, Interesting. You can say all you want about "massive data", Harry Dean, and the Walker theory not having an airing etc. As I said, you don't seem to be doing very well here. Probably because of your personal abrasiveness. But beyond that, good criticism is an art form. That is why its so rare. When people encounter it, because they are so used to hacks, they are a bit mystified by it. Good book criticism is not just listing the contents of a book and repeating it. Which is what you have done with Caufield. Any nincompoop who knows nothing about the JFK case can do that. Good criticism is much more than that. Its a long involved process of taking notes, reading carefully, and understanding what is in front of you. Then summoning up your own experience and your analytic powers and asking yourself: what is good about this, what is not, and why? What has value, what is logically argued? How and what do we compare it with? How full is the exposition, how honest is the presentation? Is the author fair to others, why or why not? And can his presentation withstand scrutiny. In other words, does his thesis outrun his evidence and did he eliminate certain aspects to cheat in that manner? Above all it is comparative and qualitative analysis. And finally, after all this is done--and more--you evaluate the thesis, and sub thesis. If anyone can show me, besides yourself, where you did this, please do so. I know how to do this since I studied the art form for many years at the feet of masters like Dwight MacDonald. And I know something about how to write history since I have an MA in it and was taught by, among others, Paul Koistenon, who wrote a magnificent five part series on the creation of the MIC. This is why people read my reviews. (Believe me I will review the Caufield book soon.) People get angry with my reviews when they disagree, and they get joyous when they agree. And some people say they learn more from my reviews than they do most books. That is what good criticism does--it enlightens and empowers the reader by elucidating what is in front of them. Just repeating what is in front of them does next to nothing. In fact, I think its worse than that. It says more about the critic than it does about the book. As if we need to know more about PT's ideas. Or the lack of such.
-
David: The Single Bullet Fantasy is in the ash heap and has been there for a long time.
-
Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all. Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile.... As they say, this is a distinction without a difference, either you picked it up or she passed it off. I already went over in detail your whole relationship with Davison. You actually beatify her horrendous book on Oswald. The main point is, and was, that neither your, nor her, nor McAdams did any review of the evidence before you jumped over here and announced with great fanfare: "Money order debunked!" You could not control yourself, you lost control of your sphincter muscles. And look what came out. And now you all want us to forget about it like it did not happen. Sorry, it did. And as I said, this is about the third or fourth time with you. When does a continuous pattern of "errors" become a deliberate attempt to mislead? I leave that up to Mr. Gordon and friends to decide. IMO, he was right when he wanted to kick you off for saying the Single Bullet Theory was inescapable. Yeah, inescapable BS.
-
I am not here to talk about Ruth Paine. I will be opening up other threads on her soon. Because the Ruth in Nicaragua post at CTKA is in the top ten according to the stats. Hundreds of people are reading it daily. I just wanted to let everyone know that your posts about the new Walker book are not critically reliable. There is an art form to writing book criticism, with rules and regulations involved. Just as there is with film and stage reviews. You comments seem to be totally divorced from those guidelines. I can understand O'Neill. He is the main person Jeff acknowledges at the end. But to anyone else, such should not be the case. Because that is not criticism. Its cheerleading.
-
Let me restate this since I think Sandy's observation is well taken: I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored. It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed. I mean can someone explain it innocently?
-
Thanks for the warning again Bob. That will be it with me and Hank. Nice pic by the way. (To the innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, Hank posts at McAdams' web site and uses aliases elsewhere. Therefore this is a further demonstration of my analysis of how they work. He is part of damage control.)
-
LOL Paul, I did not use Walker in my discussion. Not in any extensive or important way. As per Caufield, his writing on good old Michael Paine is about as lengthy and analytical as his writing about Phillips. As per your writing, as you can see from Tommy's poll, you are making thousands of converts to your Walker did it cause. Soon, you can hold your own convention. It will be as well populated as Non Conspiracists United. Ken Rahn's group.
-
Sandy: That is another mystery is it not? I mean the bleed through. I don't see how it can be ignored. It really does seem to me to be a big faux pas, one which the WC apparently swallowed. I mean can someone explain it innocently?
-
In the time line, it refers to the money order being passed through the federal reserve system. See 11/23/63 the ten am entry. As is demonstrated, when that happens a mark is placed on it. Bob: Thanks for the tip. I guess Jean took such beating on this, they are sending in the damage control team.
-
I just got the Caufield book last night. Wow, talk about guesswork. Talk about lacunae. Talk about assumptions. (He doesn't even get the publication date of Garrison's book right.) What can you say about a book that deals with David Phillips in all of two pages with one index entry. While Leander Perez has about thirty entries, and is mentioned on dozens of pages. And we all know how important Leander was in the conspiracy. And how Phillips did nothing. This is Lamar Waldron country. I did two long reviews of him. This is going to be just as interesting to critique as well. Along the way I think everyone will learn a bit about what critical standards are, and how Paul Trejo cannot be trusted with them.
-
I think this whole witless farrago is instructive though to see how their system works. And how it influences some people, who, as John says, are not really up to speed on the case. Also in understanding how the other side works--especially the DVP, Davison, McAdams cabal. This started with Davison--who apparently has all kinds of idle time these days--surfing over at Greg Parker's ROKC. She finds a post by a guy named Greg Castle, and this post questions whether or not the postal money order was ever actually cashed. My question would be: Who is Greg Castle and does he really know this issue back and forth? Because it is a highly complicated one, with layer after layer of subterfuge by the FBI. Which was then accepted as fact by the WC. Jean Davison does none of that questioning of course. Because she is not interested in doing actual research, or finding out what the true facts are. She's like a dog with a bone. So what does she do with this half baked observation instead? She passes it on to DVP, who she knows is her trusted flunky and will buy anything she says or does. And guess what? She is correct. Without doing one ounce of verification or review, DVP announced that all the work done on the postal money order has been "debunked". And he jumps on this site--just like Jean knew he would--and pronounces with 100% metaphysical certitude that such is the case.. Therefore wiping out the work of the late Ray Gallagher, Gil Jesus, David Josephs and John Armstrong. And then, McAdams leaps up and shouts, "Congratulations!" As the reader can see, this is not research at all. Its the way a political campaign works. In this instance, Jean was like Karl Rove, finding something she could use to debunk a claim by the opposing candidate. She passed it on to her messenger boy DVP who dropped it in our midst without doing any due diligence. And then McAdams acts as the audience, furnishing a self reinforcing reaction. Except, this is not a political campaign. Its the search for what really happened to President Kennedy. Therefore, its supposed to be a forensic and scholarly quest for a true evidentiary record, since we know the WC was a falsity of immense proportions. But that is not what they are about. So none of the three did any review of the facts, either internal to this particular Greg Castle observation, or whether this Castle claim fit in with the rest of the actual adduced record. And today there is a real record on this transaction which the WC completely ignored. Castle's observation made no sense to begin with, either on its own, or as part of the Gallagher-Jesus-Josephs-Armstrong revealed record. But that meant not one iota to them. But even in spite of this, DVP still tried to argue his way through to preserve Davison's credibility and to savage the critics. Which is why he is a zealot. And as John noted, some people here actually briefly bought into this piece of salesmanship--because that is what it is, not scholarship. But really all it did was show that the Three Amigos never read David Josephs' latest two part work on this issue. Which incorporates all the previous work and adds new things to reinforce it. Because that is real research. This is about the third or fourth time DVP has done this. Each time it turns out to the a misrepresentation of the true facts. How many strikes do you get?
-
You had a nice contribution there also Sandy. But John really went to town on this one. Boy did Jean Davison put her foot in her mouth or what?
-
John Armstrong, final installment, makes it all the worse for Jean Davison and her net surfing "research": These pundits claim that checks and postal money orders were processed by bank employees who used a machine (IBM #1219 and #1419) to punch each and every money order and check that was deposited. In the first place, IBM #1219 and #1419 were magnetic ink readers and could not punch holes of any kind. Secondly, simply look at LHO's payroll checks and you can see that none of the payroll checks had a punch hole of any kind. Anyone who presents this kind of "debunking," and anyone who believes this kind of "debunking" without an ounce of proof, is an obvious fraud and should be avoided. Now, serious researchers should be focusing attention on the postal stamps that appear on the front of the money order and on the signatures that appear on the back of the money order. An explanation is needed as to how the ink from the postal stamp and signatures can "bleed" thru to the other side of the money order (look at the postal money order from 1961, no bleed-thru whatsoever). Postal money orders were made from a card stock similar to an index card or an IBM type punch card-between 90# and 110# paper. The paper stock was crisp, firm, and ink "bleed-thru" to the reverse side was virtually impossible. The "bleed-thru" of the ink is a strong indication that postal money order 2,202,130,462, shown as CE 788, was not original card stock. The "bleed-thru" is an indication that the paper upon which the original money order was printed is light enough to allow ink "bleed-thru." I don't understand how or why this was done. But I do know that the original postal money order disappeared long ago, and only FBI photographs remain. Why, how, and by whose authority caused the disappearance of the original money order is unknown. Only black and white photographs remain.
-
This almost never happens, but its continuing. More from John Armstrong: Prior to 1963 postal money orders were "punched" with rectangular holes prior to deliver to the US post office for sale to customers, as were the stubs/receipts attached to the end of postal money orders. As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes. And postal money order stubs, with rectangular holes. Why don't you ask DVP, or any of these idiots, how the postal money order stubs can have rectangular punched holes prior to being deposited to a bank as they claim. And, by the way, do you notice that the ink from the postal stamps, payee, and payor did not bleed thru to the reverse side of the money order?
-
This is a treat, John Armstrong is allowing me to quote him at length on this one: As usual, the DVP's are presenting only part of the story. My question to you is why in the world do you even give these people the time of day?? You can spend a life time refuting their silly claims, and in the end what you have done is hopeless because these people will always come up with new ways to debunk anything that points to a conspiracy. When you find someone, anyone, who makes a practice of debunking you have a choice to stand beside them or stand against them--there is no middle ground. Now, with that said, what do you think serious minded researchers think about people who believe in Judyth Baker, or DVP or McAdams any of the other pundits who never do any creative research, but limit their work to debunking? I see that some of these idiots are saying that bank employees "punched" rectangular holes in checks and money orders after they were deposited to a bank. This is absolutely ridiculous!! One of these idiots claims that IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419 were used to make these punches. Jim, if you or anyone gives a xxxx about accuracy, then simply go to the IBM website and look up IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419. These are magnetic ink readers, repeat magnetic ink readers, and do not punch holes in any checks or money orders or deposits of any kind.